Libro - Venelin Barakov - Sevlievo, The Medieval City

8/11/2019 Libro - Venelin Barakov - Sevlievo, The Medieval City

1/18

589

. Medieval Selementsin the Gabrovo Region

The medieval city by the present-day townof Sevlievo is among the most interestingarchaeological sites from the high MiddleAges (12th-14thc.) in modern Bulgaria. Unfor-tunately, it is poorly known by researchers

and science due to the lack of publications ofthe regular archaeological excavations whichhave been carried out there for more thanthirty years. The revealed defensive, residen-tial and religious architecture makes it oneof the best preserved and interesting medi-eval cities. However, the reconstruction ofits building history is dicult because of thelack of precise stratigraphy. Yet, the revealedfortication system, buildings and walls, aswell as the two large necropolises nearby

with numerous nds and items, allow a newevaluation of the urban-planning, organiza-

tion of habitation and clarication of the pe-riods in the development of the city, as wellas its fate.

The medieval city by present-day Sevlievo,similar to other medieval fortresses and forti-ed selements above the modern Sevlievs-ko plain, was built on the site of an earlierlate-antique fortress situated on a naturally

protected hill popularly known among thelocals as Dzhivizli Bunar or Kaleto (Fig.1). From the late-antique fortication, sec-tions of its eastern defensive wall and a bigchurch basilica have been studied. In termsof its type and structure, it can be identiedas a fortied selement from the 5th-6th c. the most common type of selement duringthe Early Byzantine Age.

In the second half of the 10th the rst halfof the 11thc. in the Central Balkan Mountains

(Stara planina, Haemus mons) and across thehilly areas above Sevlievsko plain, early me-

SEVLIEVO

The Medieval City

Venelin Barakov


2/18

590

Thracian, Greek, Roman and Medieval Cities, Residences and Fortresses

dieval selements developed by the villagesof Batoshevo (the locality Gradat), Kramolin(the locality Gradat), and Zdravkovets (thelocality Dzhivizli Bunar). They are all locatedin the present-day region of Gabrovo.

The population built its houses using thesemi-destroyed walls of the late-antique for-tications. The defensive facilities were notrestored by the new population. However,the natural protection of the sites of the ear-lier late-antique fortresses was valued as wellas the means of easier and more ecient de-fense, and the inaccessibility which is an es-sential point for obtaining as much security as

possible from sudden aacks by the late no-mads (Pechenegs) or Hungarians.

The borders and the area of these early me-dieval selements cannot be determined be-cause the material traces left by them were de-stroyed by the later fortication and residen-tial buildings from the following age that ofthe high Middle Ages. In this respect, the ex-cavations of the medieval city in the localityDzhivizli Bunar by the city of Sevlievo pro-vides important information. The researcher

of the site for many years Simeon Simeonov refers the earliest building stage of the de-

fensive facilities of the cityto the beginning of the 10thc. Unfortunately, at the mo-ment there is no preliminarypublication about the medi-eval city in which the stra-tigraphy of this interestingmonument can be presented,and the building stages of thefortication constructions es-tablished. The discovery of

early medieval materials can-not be a criterion for referringthe start of construction ofthe medieval fortress to the10th c. Only new excavationsof sections of the defensivewall and a complex analysisof the discovered archaeolog-ical materials can bring some

clarity to this issue in the future. So far thisthesis remains unconrmed.

. The Selement in the Locality DzhivizliBunar (Kaleto)

History and Building Activity

The early medieval selement that pre-cedes the development of the medieval townin the locality Dzhivizli Bunar by present-day Sevlievo was not planned in advance;it lies on the southern slope of the hill, on afew terraces, with pronounced displacementfrom north to south. The scarce archaeologi-

cal data about it are: a few ground levelsfrom dwellings semi-dugouts and the pot-tery material intact and fragmented vesselsfrom the 10th-11thc. (, . 2007:17).A few production facilities which can beinterpreted as kilns for everyday use werediscovered in the vicinity of the dwellings.The poery is represented by pots made onthe wheel with indented undulating and/orlinear decoration. The mouths are proledand curved outwards; beneath the mouths,

some pots are decorated with small concaveholes.

Fig. 1. The medieval city by Sevlievo (plan after Simeon Simeonov)


3/18

591

S E V L I E V O

Much more information about the extentof habitation at the selement, and the sizeof its population is provided by the necropo-lises around churches No 2 and No 3, and thechurches themselves.

The churches are single-nave, with semi-rounded apses a manner in the building oftemples referring their construction to the endof the 10th-11thc. (Figs 2 and 3). The churchesare at the same time parish and cemetery the

liturgy is held there and the necropolises ofthe selement lie around them. The numerousnds from the graves adornments, crosses-encolpia, etc. conrm that the selement wasformed in the 10thc. and gradually developedduring Byzantine rule in the 11th-12th c. Thechurches and the necropolises continued tofunction as late as the rst half of the 13th c.when the selement was reduced to ashes bythe Tartars.

A new stage in the selement development

and its construction came in the 12th

c. It is re-lated to the reign and reforms of the dynasty

of the Komnenes in the Byzantine Empire, andto some new trends in the Bulgarian society.The stabilization of the Empire from a politi-cal and economical perspective was reectedin the relations in society, which became moreand more strictly hierarchal and militarized.The role of the ocial aristocracy grew as itwas received donations of lands from the Em-peror in exchange for its service in the army.The so called Pronoia as a form of possession

obtained for services rendered to the centralauthority developed. This Byzantine modelspread across all borders of the Empire in-cluding the lands it ruled which were inhab-ited by a Bulgarian population. From amongthese people a social order slowly started todevelop, called by Prof. Ivan Bozhilov thenew Bulgarian nobility. This aristocracy,grounded on its family or ocial properties,began raising fortresses which became theexpression of its power and status over the

population subordinate to it. The Bulgariannobility gradually gained power which found

Fig. 2.Church No 3 at the eastern quarter of the lower town (photo by Venelin Barakov)


4/18

592


Fig. 3. Early Byzantine basilica and church No 2 at the western quarter (photo by Venelin Barakov)

Fig. 4. The citadel of the city. View from south (photo by Venelin Barakov)


5/18

593

S E V L I E V O

Fig. 5.The eastern gate and the tower in front of it (photo by Venelin Barakov)

Fig. 6.The eastern defensive wall and the citadel (photo by Venelin Barakov)


6/18

594


its manifestation in the restoration of the Bul-garian state organization at the end of the12thc. (after almost two centuries of Byzantineoccupation of these lands).

In the area of the present-day SevlievskoPlain and its environs such processes can also

be traced. In the second half or the end of the12thc. the early medieval selements by theaforementioned hills in the locality DzhivizliBunar by the town of Sevlievo, the localityGradat by the village of Kramolin, and thelocality Vitata Stena by the village of Zdravk-ovets, were provided with a fortication sys-tem covering the entire inhabited area (theselements share identical measurementsand their approximate area is about 50 de-cares). On the highest areas of the hills inde-pendent fortications were raised with theirown function as citadels. They are a manifes-tation of dierentiation among the classes of

society of the selements and testify to thepromotion of a class which became the newBulgarian nobility, whose power rested on itsocial functions given to it by the ruler or thecentral authority. This aristocracy undertookthe direction and government of the sele-

ments, and took care of their fortication andsecurity. The new class of population wascharged with administrative and militaryfunctions. A material and architectural mani-festation of the social processes is the devel-opment of fortresses on the highest parts ofthe hills citadels or residences of the localgovernors of selements. The activity of no-bility as well as the administrative status ofthe selement, predominating as a fortiedcentre over a particular territory or district,gave impetus to its development. It increasedits population and gradually evolved into amedieval city.

Fig. 7.The western gate of the citadel (photo by Venelin Barakov)


7/18

595

S E V L I E V O

1The props are wooden beams. The props system is a construction of wooden beams joined together.

In the second half or the end of the 12thc. theselement in the locality Dzhivizli Bunar wasprovided with a new defensive wall replac-ing the early Byzantine one and surroundingthe inhabited area on all sides (Fig. 1). At thehighest spot of the fortress a citadel with an

independent fortication was raised. It coversan area of about 15 decares (Fig. 4). The build-ing technique of the defensive wall of the cita-del is of quarry stones, roughly polished onthe exterior and the interior face of the mainwall, with a lling of stones and bricks in opusimplectum inside (, . 2007:1314).The stones were joined with white mortar. Thethickness of the wall is 1.80 m. In the masonrythe so called props system is used; in it theprops remain hidden in the inside of the wall.1

This building technique points to the generaldating of the defensive wall of the citadel inthe 12th the beginning of the 13thc. Access toit was through three gates the eastern (mainentrance), eastern (secondary) and western. Inthe east was the main entrance of the citadel.

The eastern gate has three construction stages(Fig. 5). Originally it was two-leaved (the twopilasters for the folding doors are preserved),shaped like a passage inside the wall, pavedwith slabs. During a later construction stagethe entrance was narrowed and the gate itselfwas designed as an elaborate complex with anL-shaped wall aached to it, over the earlierEarly Byzantine wall. Thus a new entranceand a passage with stone steps were designed.Their possible reconstruction allows the sup-

Fig. 8. The boyar church inside the citadel (photo by Venelin Barakov)


8/18

596


position that at the entrance there was a towerabove the gate. During the last constructionstage a new tower was built east of the gate,and the gate itself was walled up (,. 2007:1617, 2022).

The dating of all this reconstruction is dif-

cult due to the lack of publications about thestratigraphy of the site. Their interpretationis possible only with a review of the overallanalysis of the archaeological materials thathave remained. The traces of re at the gateand the tower, as well as the building lead tothe conclusion that the main entrance of thecitadel of the town was fortied for a relative-ly short time. The reasons for that are of po-litical and military nature: an external threatfrom an enemy, threatening the security of

the city.Another small gate connecting the citadelwith the lower town was revealed forty me-

ters south of the main entrance. Its design issimple, and there is an opinion that this gateconnected the citadel with the spring, whichwas located in the lower town. The totallength of the eastern defensive wall of the cit-adel along with the two gates is 106 m (Fig. 6).

The northern defensive wall of the citadelis 141 m long. At some points its foundationcoincides with that of the Early Byzantineone. At the south-western corner, where thenorthern wall connects with the western one,was the other gate of the citadel (the westerngate); it connected the citadel with the earlierselement. The gate belongs to the simpliedtype without pilasters (Fig. 7). Next to thegate a large square tower, constructively at-tached to the defensive wall that protected

its entrance, was built. A military buildingfor the garrison is located behind the tower.South of the gate the western defensive wall

Fig. 9.The boyar residence inside the citadel (photo by Venelin Barakov)


9/18

597

S E V L I E V O

is partly preserved, and has been studied insingle sections. The southern wall of the cita-del has been recorded only in sections. Due tothe fact that rocks are situated in the south, theconstruction of a wall along the entire lengthwas not necessary.

At the highest part of the citadel, at a laterstage, a large tower was built; it is construc-tively connected to the defensive wall, andit is aached to the north-eastern corner ofthe citadel. The shape of the tower is an ir-

regular square, and its dimensions are: east-ern wall 10 m long, 2.80 m thick; northernwall 9.40 m long, 3.50 m thick; westernwall 5.20 m long; southern wall 13 m long(, . 2007:1011). The constructionof the large tower, which dominated the cita-del and the city, can be referred to the secondquarter of the 13th c. The tower was at leastthree-storeyed with inner wooden staircaseand wooden platforms separating the oors(, . 2007:1415). The wooden con-structions of the tower were reduced to ashesat a stage when the entire citadel enduredsome cataclysm.

The citadel of the city in the locality Dzhi-vizli Bunar was sparsely inhabited, as theresults from the archaeological excavationshave shown. Only new excavations may con-rm or reject the speculation that the citadelwas inhabited by acomparatively smallnumber of people the local governor and

his retinue. Amongthe buildings exploredinside the citadel, theso called boyar churchand boyar residencestand out due to theirlocation (,. 2007:2429). Theywere built south of thetower on the same axisas the main entrance

of the citadel from theeast. The church is sin-gle-nave, single-apse

with a vast narthex which was built later (Fig.8). Its size and location reveal its characterand purpose to serve the nobleman rulerof the citadel. The church was reconstructed acouple of times, and three construction stagescan be distinguished. The rst stage is relatedto the construction of the temple itself. At itssecond reconstruction the dimensions of thechurch were signicantly narrowed, and thenarthex was modied for a water reservoir(, . 2007:2627). This repair can

be referred to the 14th

c. when the church lostits importance as a religious shrine and be-came a reservoir for water, serving the needsof the population of the citadel. The third andlast construction stage dates to the rst centu-ries of Ooman rule. That is when long stonebenches plastered with mortar were builtalong the northern and the southern sides ofthe nave. Such elements from the interior ofthe churches are typical for the age of the Ot-toman rule from the end of the 14th the rsthalf of the 15thc.

To the east of the so called boyar churchand north of the passage of the eastern, maingate, a large residential building has been re-vealed; it is interpreted as a boyar dwelling(Fig. 9). The dwelling is an irregular squarein form (, . 2007:2730). The wallsof its foundations are 1 m thick and built of

Fig. 10.Plan of the eastern part of the citadel (plan after Simeon Simeonov)


10/18

598


quarry stones on mud. It was two-storeyedand the second oor was used for habitation,and most probably it was entirely of wood.Except for the boyar dwelling, a few more fa-cilities have been studied within the citadel south of the residence, along the western gate

and the south-western slope by the westerndefensive wall of the citadel (Fig. 10). Build-ings with another purpose were located at afew sites south of the tower of the citadeland along the eastern defensive wall work-shops for iron, processing, melting and cast-ing of metal; barracks for the military garrisonof the citadel around the two gates, etc.

The selement at the foot of the citadel wasincluded along with it in a common fortiedsystem and became the lower town of the

fortress. A wall with a gate has been studiednorth-west of the western entrance of the cita-del (Fig. 11). This wall stretches from the south

Fig. 11.Gate and defensive wall at the lower town (photo by Venelin Barakov)

towards the dwellings at the foot of the cita-del, but it has not been entirely revealed. Theresidential quarters of the lower town are situ-ated on the terraces south of the citadel (Fig.12). The total area of the lower town, which isabout 50 decares, is fenced from the south by

a wall built of quarry stones on white mortar.Three transverse walls built of quarry stoneson mud run perpendicular to this exteriorwall and divide the lower town into separatequarters (Fig. 13). During the period from theend of the 12thto the rst half of the 13thc. veresidential quarters may be distinguished inthe lower town; they were divided from eachother by the transverse walls (, .2007:3435). In the space between the secondand third quarter there was a gate in the barri-

er wall. The design of the quarters and their ar-rangement indicates the manner in which thecity developed during the Middle Ages. It is a


11/18

599

S E V L I E V O

Fig. 12.The lower town of the medieval city (plan after Venelin Barakov)

Fig. 13.Residential quarter at the lower town (photo by Venelin Barakov)


12/18


13/18

601

S E V L I E V O

illuminants or home icons were put in them.The oors of almost all the houses are of clay,although there are also individual examplesof houses paved with slabs. The entrances ofthe dwellings face south or east. Thus, thehouses remain protected from the wind anderosion. The entrances of the dwellings were1.20-1.50 m wide. All homes have replaceswith round or semi-round shapes, or squarestoves. There were also household furnacesoutside the dwellings, which served for bak-

ing bread and meat. Their number is great-est in the western quarter seven furnaces.The nds and the coins discovered inside thehouses indicate habitation during the 12th the rst half of the 13thc. During the 14thc. lifein the lower town was not that intensive andperhaps some of the quarters were deserted.That is aested to by the almost completelack of poery from the 14thc.

Two churches have been revealed in thelower town, respectively in the westernmostand easternmost quarters. The churches aresingle-nave, single-apse similar to churchNo 2, and have narthexes. The building tech-nique and the planning specics of the twochurches refer their construction to the 11th-12thc. This dating is conrmed by the ndsdiscovered inside them (fragments of bronzeprocession crosses) as well as by the presenceof a stratum of earlier graves which is con-sistent with the disposition of the temples.Necropolises of the population of the lowertown are situated around the two churches

(, . 2007:4651). More than a hun-dred and thirty graves from the two necropo-lises have been explored. The nds from thegraves show that the necropolises were usedfor a long period of time from the 11thto the14th c. This is due to the fact that along thesouthern slope of the hill the early medievalselement from the 10th-11thc. was originallylocated.

The two churches in the lower town werereconstructed at a later stage. Benches were

built along the long sides of the nave, similarto the church at the citadel. This building hasbeen dated to the beginning of the 15th-16thc.

Despite the unquestionable data about thedevelopment and the practicing of variouscrafts at the citadel and the lower town ofthe city, the main occupation of the popula-tion remained agriculture. This is aested to

by the numerous nds of farming tools andinstruments ploughshares, sickles, hoes,pruning-knives, etc. The fertile valley at thefoot of the city along the river valley of theRositsa River does not leave any doubt aboutthe basic lifestyle of the population of the city

agriculture. Despite the evolution of theselement into a medieval city whose struc-ture was gradually outlined during the 13thc.with two clearly distinguished parts citadeland lower town, the old traditions and thelifestyle of the population of the selementwere still strong, and it continued practicingagriculture.

. Periodization of the Building Stages

The complex analysis of fortication, build-ing technique, nds, and numismatic materi-als, as well as the data from the developmentof building at the citadel and the lower town,allow the reconstruction of the separate stag-es through which life at the town by present-day Sevlievo went during the Middle Ages.

Chronologically earliest is the early medi-eval selement with borders that are visiblebehind the late-antique defensive wall on thehilltop and along the southern slopes of theplateau, where the easternmost quarter de-

veloped later. The selement did not have itsown fortication system, and used the natu-ral protection of the area.

During the 11th-12thc. the selement grew.For the needs of the population, kilns forthe production of kitchen poery were con-structed at the eastern foot of Dzhivizli BunarHill at the end of the 11 th the beginning ofthe 12thc. Later, during the second half of the12thc., the fortication system of the citadelabove the selement was built; it is a mani-

festation of the emergence of the aristocraticelite which took control over the selementand its arable hinterland. Evidence for refer-


14/18

602


ring the building of the citadel to the secondhalf or the end of the 12th c. is not only the

building technique and the revealed fortica-tion architecture, but the fact that the overallplanning of the fortication on the top of thehill is directed towards the selement in thelower town, over which the citadel dominates.The western gate was constructed in such away that it was connected with the quartersin the lower town. Its disposition indicatesthe already formed selement at the foot of

the hill. Its fortication and the architectureof the citadel is varied due to the buildingsconstructed in its interior the imposing resi-dence of the local boyar and the church, serv-ing the needs of the noblemans family. Theinterior of the citadel is complemented bybuildings for the needs of the military gar-rison and workshops and farming structures,related to the everyday life of its inhabitants.

In the lower town, at the foot of the cita-del, residential quarters developed duringthe rst half of the 13thc.; they were dividedby transverse walls and enclosed by a com-mon wall from the south. The necropolisesof the quarters are located around the twochurches. The nds from the dwellings andthe design of the houses interiors testify to ahigh quality of life in the lower town duringthe rst half of the 13th c. which turned thefortress and the selement into a ourishingcity.

The traces of a conagration establishedin the remains of the houses from the low-

er town, the tower and the main gate of thecitadel, as well as coin nds with the lastemissions dating to the time of TheodoreKomnenos Doukas (1230-1237) and John IIIDoukas Vataes (1222-1254) show that bythe mid-13thc. the medieval city had enduredsome terrible cataclysm. This event could beassociated with the march of the Tartar KhanBatu through present-day Northern Bulgariain 1242-1243 when the city was seriously af-fected. After this tragic event, life in the me-

dieval city never recovered to the level ofearlier ages. The citadel and the lower town

continued to exist, but with a reduced popu-lation. The repairs to the defensive wall andthe tower, as well as the narrowing of thegates, can be referred to the mid-13thand the14thc. The lack of stratigraphy makes the dat-ing very dicult.

All archaeological evidence categoricallypoints to the destruction of the medieval cityby Sevlievo by the Tartars in 1242-1243, andnot by the Ooman Turks at the end of the14thc. In the second half of the 14thc. the lower

town was completely deserted, and life con-centrated entirely inside the citadel. The socalled boyar church ceased to function, andwas turned into a water reservoir serving theneeds of a prolonged siege. The ourishingcity of the 12th the rst half of the 13thc., be-came a small fortied selement in the 14thc.

During the 15th-16thc., over the ruins of themedieval city in the locality Dzhivizli Bunar

by Sevlievo a small selement with a Chris-tian population developed, which restoredthe medieval churches for its needs. That isthe last stage of life at the selement. After the17thc. the area was completely abandoned.

The development of fortication buildingsand a selement network during the MiddleAges in Sevlievsko Plain and the surround-ing hills shows some features that are typi-cal not only for this area but for the entire re-gion of Northern Bulgaria. Firstly, this is thetransformation of the selement in the local-ity Dzhivizli Bunar by present-day Sevlievointo a medieval city. There is unquestionable

information about the presence of an urbanculture the presence of authority in theperson of the local administrative governorwho resided at the citadel; residential quar-ters and enclosed areas related to particularcrafts and production can be distinguished.Trade and economic relations during this agewere not that developed. This explains whyagriculture was still the main occupation of agreat part of the population of the lower city.The heavily fortied citadel provided reli-

able protection to the population of the lowertown in case of danger. The city by present-


15/18

603

S E V L I E V O

day Sevlievo fell in the path of the Tartars in1242-1243, and is the only dated site in Bul-garia which suered from this aack. Thecity suered from the invasion and never re-covered. Life there was revived in the 14thc.,

but on a lower level as an ordinary fortiedselement.

The population of the selement were oc-cupied mostly in crafts, trade exchange withthe rural surroundings, agriculture, andbreeding of sheep and goats. The land was

cultivated to provide food for its population.Besides the fortress, the population wouldhave performed protective and signal-obser-vation functions when an enemy approached.

At the end of the 15thor during the 16thc.,the selement was deserted once and for all.This was due to the new economic and socialconditions imposed by the Oomans. Thissituation reected on the character of the set-tlement network which endured transforma-tion. The Bulgarian population was forced topay taxes in money and in kind to the cen-tral authorities and the local spahi (Oomanlandlords), to fulll various labour services,to provide food and support to the army ofthe Oomans, to participate in the building ofbridges, roads and inns, etc. All these obliga-tions burdened the Bulgarians and they wereforced to look to the lands suitable for culti-vation to maintain the family, and enable thepayment of taxes. Thus, villages developed atthe foot of the aforementioned medieval cit-ies. In order to survive, the Bulgarians had to

become involved in the economic system ofthe Ooman Empire, which reected on theireveryday life, occupation, traditions and life-styles. The fortied selements were desertedbecause they did not meet these new require-ments. If during the Second Bulgarian King-dom the cities, fortresses and fortied set-tlements were built on inaccessible sites andsecurity was sought consciously, in the earlycenturies of Ooman rule (15th-16thc.) the val-leys and elds now started to be occupied;

they allowed for the preservation of life, andthe survival and continuity of the family.

V. The Name of the City Opinions and Hypotheses

The name of the city in the locality Dzhiviz-li Bunar by present-day Sevlievo has been ac-cepted by all researchers so far: N. Kovachev,S. Simeonov, Hr. Temelski and others, almostwithout reserve, as Hotel or Hotalich (in Turk-ish). This name occurs in a medieval fragmen-tary inscription from the Batoshevski Monas-tery which has been destroyed. The inscrip-

tion stated: This temple was raised by Genofrom Hotel, Petar from Tarnov, year 67(, . 1959: 352356). It is a buildinginscription and testies to the constructionof a church. The building was ordered andfunded by a local boyar who, according tothe aforementioned researchers, was fromthe medieval city by Sevlievo (, .2006:1). The name of the city Hotel, later inthe Turkish tax records occurs in its Turkishtranscription as Hotalich. That is the only me-dieval source containing the name of the city.

The inscription was discovered far fromthe ruins of the medieval city. The specula-tion that the name Hotel belongs to the bo-yar who governed it is not serious and shouldbe rejected. The inscription is evidence of abuilding team which performed the construc-tion of a church that could be aorded onlyby a person of aristocratic origin, who con-ducted administrative functions at the royalcourt in Tarnovo. The church discovered atthe so called citadel of the city by Sevlievo is

a small, modest building which can be takenas a signicant monument in the traditions ofthe building school of Tarnovo. Besides thecity by Sevlievo, during the 13th-14thc., acrossthe hilly eminences of the present-day Sev-lievsko Plain, two more large and very strongmedieval fortresses were raised; we hintedat them in the beginning by the village ofKramolin, in the locality Gradat, and thevillage of Zdravkovets in the locality Vita-ta Stena. The excavations of the aforemen-

tioned sites undertaken by Atanas Milchevand K. Koycheva have shown the presence of


16/18

604


inner fortications citadels, churches insidethe citadels, and craft quarters at the foot ofthe inner fortications surrounded by inde-pendent defensive walls (, ., ., . 1992:9295; ,., . . 1978:5255). Both fortressesshow evolution toward medieval cities intheir development. The churches inside their

citadels are large, single-nave structures ofthe type compact cross a widespreadtype of religious buildings at the capital Tar-novgrad (Veliko Tarnovo); as at the churchin the locality Vitata Stena it was of alternat-ing brick and stone layers, with lavish stoneplastic decoration (, ., . 1978:5557).

All this illustrates the status of the fortress,of the boyar who ruled over it, and his mate-rial resources (at the excavations a large im-

posing boyar residence and very lavish aris-tocratic necropolis (Fig. 15) were discovered.The design of the temple is in the spirit of the

metropolitan architectural-artistic school. Thecomplex approach to all available data: bothonomastic and archaeological, shows that thename Hotel probably belonged to the sele-ment in the locality Vitata Stena by the vil-lage of Zdravkovets, and not to the medievalcity by Sevlievo. Archaeological surveys inthe area would provide a nal answer to this

question, but a few later sources from the Ot-toman age present further convincing proofthat medieval Hotalich is not the medievalselement above the modern town of Sev-lievo, and it should not be identied with it.

The Turkish records from the 15th c. on-wards mention two big selements in Sev-lievsko Plain which existed separately anewly founded village called Selvi whosedirect successor is present-day Sevlievo; andHotalich the successor of medieval Hotel,

which lost its status as a fortied selement.The selement was already developing in

the low and at plain and for a long time it

Fig. 15. The fortress in the locality Vitata Stena by the village of Zdravkovets (plan after Atanas Milchevand Kina Koycheva)


17/18

605

S E V L I E V O

was the administrative centre of the region Nahiya. In a record from 1550 representing alist of the lien properties in the district, it isstated: In Nahiya Hotalich, also called Hisar-begli and Zir. The document stresses thatthe population of the medieval city of Hotelleft it and seled in the plain: Hisar is the oldfortress-town; zir means under, i.e. the set-tlement at its foot. To claim that the lowertown of Hotalich is actually the later sele-ment of Selvi, Servi Sevlievo, is unconvinc-

ing (, . 2007:3). On the contrary,the Turkish record very clearly testies to thetransformation undergone by the city in thelocality Vitata Stena it oered resistance tothe conquerors, it was reduced to ashes as thearchaeological excavations prove, and its pop-ulation seled at its foot, and kept the nametranscribed in Turkish as Hotalich. The mostconvincing localization for the selement ofHotalich is by the present-day village of Ya-vorets, just at the foot of the rocks of the local-ity Vitata Stena; and the localization of the me-dieval city of Hotel the fortress on the rocksin the locality Vitata Stena.

Summarizing the data related to the originof the name of Hotel/ Hotalich, we shouldmention that they concern two selements

which developed as a result of the capture andthe abandonment of the medieval fortressesin the district. The selement network of theSecond Bulgarian Kingdom was transformedas the population abandoned the fortied cit-ies and the fortresses, and seled in the lowand at Sevlievsko Plain. The new Oomanpower and administration did not allow theuse of the fortications of the Second Bulgar-ian Kingdom, and it did not occupy them. Theinaccessible fortied cities from the age of the

Second Bulgarian Kingdom in this geographicarea no longer had military-strategic signi-cance for the Ooman State. Their popula-tion deserted them voluntarily, and foundednew unfortied selements near the arableland. The reasons for that were of a social andeconomic nature new taxes had to be paid,new labour services and obligations had to

be fullled, and these considerations tied theBulgarians to the land and its cultivation. Themedieval city by present-day Sevlievo, andmedieval Hotel in the locality Vitata Stena,had a similar historical fate which is convinc-ingly aested to by the archaeological excava-tions that continued more than thirty years.Medieval Hotel/Hotalich is to be discussed inanother study of mine.


18/18

606


BIBLIOGRAPHY

, . 1959:. . . , 22, 1959:352356., ., . 1978:. , . .

. , 4, 1978:5265., ., . , . 1994:. , . , . .

XIIXIV . . ( ). , 20, 1994:91107.

, . 2006:. . . : . , 2006.

, . 2007: . . . - . 2007.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	macuae
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Libro - Venelin Barakov - Sevlievo, The Medieval City

Documents